Yes, I’m fine with accepting as-is.  Actually the discussion has been quite illuminating.  I learned

• An idea for improving inferred types (Trac #16070)
• An understanding that
  • Type families are in some ways more expressive because they support evidence
  • But fundeps allow overlap (which for soundness type families must eschew) and that allows a different kind of expressiveness.

So the two overlap, but neither subsumes the other.  And I think the choice is fundamental; the overlap stuff in fundeps is allowed precisely because it only affect unification, and doesn’t turn into evidence.

• For HasField we don’t need overlap.
• However, even if we used a type-family encoding, a 3-parameter class is probably best, because it leads to briefer types.
• And, absent #16070, the error messages with fundeps are better, and the extra expressiveness of type families has not (yet) become important for HasField.

Conclusion: use fundeps for now.

Simon

From: Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki@gmail.com>
Sent: 08 January 2019 23:10
To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com>
Cc: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org>
Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Discussion for #158 "Add `setFild` to `HasField`"

Hello,

does anyone else have any input on this proposal? 

There has been some discussion on Simon's point about using a type-family instead of a fun-dep.  The outcome of the discussion is a little unclear, but here is a very brief summary to the best of my understanding:

   * Either approach works, but with the current GHC implementations both approaches have some pros and some cons.

   * Fun-deps (used in the current design) are a bit more restrictive as they do not produce evidence at the moment

   * There are two ways to use type families instead of fun-deps:

          a) the class has 2 parameters, and the third is computed from them using a type family

          b) the class remains with 3 parameters, but it gets a super-class constraint, where a type-family encodes the functional dependency

   * Either type family encoding leads to types that look more verbose, both in errors and inferred types.

    * There are some ideas about how this might be improved for type families in general (see #16070)

The choice of type-families/fun-deps is quite orthogonal to the original proposal, which is about adding a way to update records.  We were discussing it,

because it is quite tempting to roll-up multiple interface breaking changes into one.

In the interest of making progress, my vote would be to accept the proposal as is, and delay switching to type families to a separate proposal,

which might look better once the improvements in #16070 are figured out.

What does everyone else think?

-Iavor

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:04 AM Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:

Iavor

I’m broadly happy, but I would like us (and the proposers) to discuss the question of using a type family instead of a fundep.  See my comment at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/158#issuecomment-448520004

Simon

From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces@haskell.org> On Behalf Of Iavor Diatchki
Sent: 18 December 2018 18:02
To: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org>
Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Discussion for #158 "Add `setFild` to `HasField`"

Hello,

let's start the discussion on proposal #158.

After some discussion on the pull request the proposal was changed, so that instead of adding another method, it now proposes to remove the existing method `getField`, and add a new method `hasField`, which allows to both access and change the value of a field.  After the proposal the class would look like this

-- `x` is the name of the field, `r` is the type of the record, `a` is the type of the field

class HasField x r a | x r -> a where

  hasField :: r -> (a -> r, a)

In addition, we'd provide two functions `getField` and `setField` which are defined in terms of `hasField`.    The proposal may break existing code, if it defines manual instances of `HasField`, however, code that just uses the functionality will continue working as before.   `HasField` is relatively new, and there aren't many reasons to define custom instances of it, so it is expected that breaking code would not be a big issue.

This seems like a reasonably simple change, that adds new functionality, so I recommend that we accept the change.

-Iavor